|
Post by wastedyuthe on Jul 24, 2006 20:56:59 GMT
Of course, Marcus- I completely agree. All I am saying is Forever Autumn could easily be put at the end at the moment mentioned, if Jeff so wished. And it wouldn't interfere with the story- it will complement it. I am sure Jeff won't just try and fit it in there somewhere just for the sake of having it in the film. I am sure we all agree, if it is to be in the film, then it should be put in the right place (and I am sure Jeff will do just that).
|
|
|
Post by Killraven on Jul 28, 2006 13:35:19 GMT
My feeling was just that JW is making a film based around his musical, rather than a film per se. I doubt he'll be doing a large amount of new scoring to make up for songs he's had to remove because they don't wholly fit the narrative of the book. For me personally I would be disappointed if I didn't hear a rendition of "Spirit of Man" at some point during the film... and that doesn't correlate with the book either. In any event, I'd much rather SOM was included than the risible "Parson Nathaniel" KR
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jul 28, 2006 14:14:41 GMT
I've gone over this before but just for those who seem to have missed it... The last Jeff told me about the movie is that it will be a film based upon the book but probably incorporating the extra/changed characters from his musical. As for the music, it is not going to be a pop video. The musical songs will likely be present but in orchestral versions as the music is, in the case of the film, intended to become the soundtrack to an adaption of HG's story.
|
|
|
Post by wastedyuthe on Jul 28, 2006 14:51:12 GMT
Regarding the score then, that sounds ideal for me- I would much rather an orchestral soundtrack rather than proper songs- the Forever Autumn music will still be immediately identifiable. I just hope if he does use the characters that deviate from the book, that it doesn't deviate too much. I am sure we all want a film that will be as faithful as possible (mind you, I am sure Mr Wayne knows what the fans want, and indeed agrees too).
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 28, 2006 19:00:14 GMT
I would prefer Jeff Wayne concentrate on making a good, solid film... rather than trying to put his music in for the sake of it. Me too!
|
|
eagle
Junior Member
Eagle nut!?
Posts: 29
|
Post by eagle on Aug 3, 2006 0:13:05 GMT
CarrieGotta have a chick in a film!
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Aug 8, 2006 23:50:57 GMT
If you want to have the Narrator's wife involved more directly, I suggest putting her into the *London* "panic on the docks" sequence, which would be much more crowded and chaotic and thus more exciting than the boarding-the-ferry sequence just prior to the Thunder Child battle.
The brother could be brought more directly into the story this way:
1. The Brother visits the Narrator and is included in the early "star gazing" scene where the Narrator points out Mars to his Wife. Not necessarily the exact sequence in which the Narrator and his Wife take a walk to stargaze-- it seems a good idea to make that a husband/wife bonding scene, as in the Pendragon film**-- but they could bid adieu to the Brother just before they go on their walk.
**Hey, Timbo got at least *one* thing right in his movie!
2. When the Narrator and his Wife flee their house, instead of driving to her cousin's house, the Narrator takes her to the train station to send her off to his Brother's home. The Narrator's story would then segue directly into "The Storm" sequence.
3. The Wife could then join up with the Brother and become part of the "panic in London" sequence.
4. As suggested earlier in this thread, there could be a dramatic scene where the Brother and the Wife are separated by paniced crowds. Or the Wife could get passage on board a ship at the "chaos at the London docks" sequence from the book, with the Brother left behind as she leaves on a ship.
5. From this point we follow the Brother's story as written in the book. I question the value of replacing the Brother with the Wife. What about the scene where the Brother engages in fisticuffs with a couple of ruffians on the road who try to steal their horse and buggy? Will the Wife herself physically struggle with these ruffians?
When plot threads separate in a movie, they need to be brought back together at the end to produce a satisfying ending. So the Brother's thread needs to be rejoined with the Writer's at the end. I suggest the following:
6. During the "Dead London" sequence, instead of showing just the Narrator discovering everything, or showing a montage with the Narrator seen only occasionally, we see both the Narrator and the Brother independently exploring the dead city, cutting back and forth between them.
7. In the following chapter, "Wreckage", some "kindly people" find the Narrator "...weeping and raving through the streets of St. John's Wood... singing some insane doggeral about 'The Last Man Left Alive! Hurrah!'" The Narrator describes these "kindly people" not at all, and I suggest it would be better to have a dramatic scene where the Brother discovers the demented Narrator and either brings him to his senses upon the spot (to shorten the story a bit) or else takes him to shelter and nurses him back to health (in the novel, the Narrator spends four days with these unnamed people, recovering). Then the Brother could accompany the Narrator for the dramatic reunion with the Wife.
|
|
|
Post by wastedyuthe on Aug 9, 2006 7:56:31 GMT
Very, very good Lensman. I like all of those ideas. However, with point 5, Carrie wouldn't have to deal with the thugs if he were to use Carrie as in the album, as the thugs weren't in Jeff Wayne's album version.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Aug 10, 2006 9:18:35 GMT
I believe someone quoted JW as saying he wanted the movie to stick closer to the novel than his album did. My comments were intended along those lines. Since I don't have a copy of the album, and have never heard it, I have no idea what changes he made in the story.
Anyway, if the Brother is to be brought more directly into the story line, he should be introduced early, be involved directly in one or more moments of danger with the Narrator or the Wife, and be brought back in at the end of the movie so it doesn't look like his story line was just abandoned. I've suggested one way to do all that. There may be better ways to do it.
|
|
|
Post by wastedyuthe on Aug 10, 2006 9:52:12 GMT
"if the Brother is to be brought more directly into the story line, he should be introduced early, be involved directly in one or moments of danger with the Narrator or the Wife, and be brought back in at the end of the movie so it doesn't look like his story line was just abandoned."
Agreed. Perhaps EvilNerfHerder could pass some of these suggestions over to Mr Wayne
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Aug 10, 2006 10:48:29 GMT
Jeff told me a few weeks ago that they have a script already. He's not ready to give out details yet though, he said. I will pass some of this stuff on to him when I get the chance though.
|
|
|
Post by wastedyuthe on Aug 10, 2006 12:25:22 GMT
Thank you, Evilnerfherder. At least he might get a few ideas, just in case.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Aug 10, 2006 13:57:12 GMT
One thing Jeff isn't short of is ideas, to be fair and he has a definate plan for this movie. But I do appraise him of what people are saying from time to time and he is aware of the sort of things would like to see in this movie.
|
|
|
Post by wastedyuthe on Aug 10, 2006 16:39:16 GMT
Perhaps I wrote that wrong- of course he's not short of ideas. I meant no dis-respect to the fella. But you knew that, right?
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Aug 10, 2006 19:20:04 GMT
Right.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Aug 10, 2006 20:08:42 GMT
Jeff told me a few weeks ago that they have a script already. He's not ready to give out details yet though, he said. I will pass some of this stuff on to him when I get the chance though. Do you know if the script is overwhelmingly based on the words spoken in the book?
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Aug 10, 2006 23:01:05 GMT
As for precise details of what situations from the book may or may not appear in the film I can't say, as Jeff has said that he is not ready to discuss this yet. The time constraints that he had to work around on the album wouldn't be such a factor in the movie, though, I'm sure. Jeff has always said that the book is firmly in his mind on this, he is a major fan of the novel as we all know. Whilst this film will undoubtably have elements of his album included (with his name attached, certain things will be expected of it) he is concerned mostly with making a good adaption of the novel, as this is something he mentioned that he really wants to see himself. That's pretty much all I can tell you at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Aug 11, 2006 1:51:31 GMT
I'm sure JW can afford to hire real writers, not just wannabes like me.
Please note my comments were only in response to discussion of how to get the Brother involved more directly into the story. That doesn't mean I *want* to see those changes made. I would be perfectly happy with a strict adaptation of the book, with the only changes being to shorten the story as necessary to make a good film. As I noted recently in the Pendragon section, slavishly following every single detail of Wells' novel is a mistake for a filmed version. For example, at the end of Book 1, Chapter 3 where the Narrator walks to Lord Hilton's estate, finds Hilton isn't home but will be arriving later by train, walks home for a spot of tea, walks to the train station to meet Lord Hilton as he arrives, and delivers a quickly forgotten message which proves totally pointless to the rest of the story. That sequence is better left out. It occupies only three short paragraphs in the book, yet several minutes of screen time in Pendragon's movie.
But that's a trivial example. More to the point, movies often combine minor characters and leave out certain scenes to move the pace along. Peter Jackson's LOTR left out or combined a *lot* of minor characters. Few people think those movies are the worse for it, altho I'm sure we'll have Wellsian "purists" here who will loudly complain when (not if) JW does it.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Aug 12, 2006 3:30:46 GMT
Don't forget LOTR is a huge book and even though there were 3 long films - it's perhaps more understandable if things were changed around slightly. Don't look to Hines film as an example of timing etc for a film as the novel moves along at a good pace despite Hines pathetic attempt to translate it to film.
|
|
Reppu
Junior Member
heatraying the crap out of mankind?cooollllaaaa!
Posts: 33
|
Post by Reppu on Jan 11, 2007 9:03:13 GMT
I think that for those wishing a movie as true to the book as possible, the London panic scene is a must. And for that you definitely need the brother, because the journalist only arrives to London when it is already a dead city. However, Carrie seems as a good link between the journalist and the Thunderchild events. Lensman treatment is brilliant in my opinion, i hope the man takes a look at it before freezing the script.
|
|